8 ms·
While the unfolding situation at OpenAI is certainly complex, one can't help but question the role of D'Angelo in this scenario. Given his entanglement in AI de
by lawxls 3y ago
While the unfolding situation at OpenAI is certainly complex, one can't help but question the role of D'Angelo in this scenario. Given his entanglement in AI development and his recent ventures that place him in direct competition with OpenAI, his continued presence on the board raises legitimate concerns. The essence of board membership, especially in a field as intricate and rapidly evolving as AI, should be rooted in unconflicted support and clear alignment with the organization's goals. If the circulating rumors hold any weight—those hinting at his involvement in the CEO's abrupt dismissal—then it only compounds the argument for a reconsideration of his board role. Entrepreneurship, while often a game of strategic moves, must also adhere to a code of ethics. If these stories of past betrayals among peers are more than just whispers, it does raise questions about the integrity of leadership and decision-making within such influential tech circles. In the interest of transparency and maintaining trust within the tech community, perhaps it's time for D'Angelo to reevaluate his position and possibly step down, ensuring OpenAI can navigate its path without potential conflicts.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- m3kw9 3y agoSo OpenAI has no conflict of interest clause?
- vkou 3y agoDid Sam Altman have any conflicts of interest, between OpenAI's charter and his other investments?
- cbsmith 3y agoThe answer to that one is of indeed YES. It would appear that there are different rules when profit is involved, which ironically is exactly what OpenAI's nonprofit parent was intended to prevent.
- jacquesm 3y agoYes, it would be funny if it wasn't tragic: the exact scenario they wanted to prevent materialized but from the one angle where they weren't covered. I predict this is the last time that a non-profit is put in charge of a for profit that has investors. That mistake is not going to be made again. And it also shows how risky it is to put together new governance structures even if they seem to be a good idea at the time. Because the fig leaf suddenly turned into a hammer the size of which would be hard to replicate in a normal governance setting. Unparalleled destruction with zero regards for the consequences.
- stcredzero 3y agothe one angle where they weren't covered Not sure what this is from the thread context. Unparalleled destruction with zero regards for the consequences. Isn't this the size of the hammer needed, in case there's a danger of misaligned runaway superintelligence?
- jacquesm 3y ago> Isn't this the size of the hammer needed, in case there's a danger of misaligned runaway superintelligence? Possibly, but then you are better off not to develop the thing in the first place. And you should only break the glass in a break-the-glass moment.
- robbomacrae 3y agoPurely hypothetical but this presents a tiny angle which Adam could come out of this as a reasonable person... if all of this was basically him saying "I have to go. You have to go. We are both compromised and our positions are now against the charter" then maybe Sam was fighting against that because of the team he built and loves leading. This is one reason I would accept Adam's role if it is just him hanging on to make sure Sam is out before leaving himself. But if that's the case then just say it.
- jacquesm 3y ago
- jacquesm 3y agoAbsolutely, but that seems to have been a prerequisite for joining the board of OpenAI.
- spamizbad 3y agoYes but that's most boards these days, at least by the standards of a layperson.
- CamperBob2 3y agoYou forgot the "It's important to keep in mind" part.
- jacquesm 3y agoIndeed, this is most puzzling and it is now a 33% chance that he's the one that started all this. If it turns out that is true the chances of a successful suit go up considerably.
- tomp 3y agoWho cares who started this? All four are equally responsible. You can’t vote then say it wasn’t your fault (unless you were literally coerced).
- jacquesm 3y agoThat might cause the board to split up further, there is already one defector from the 'gang of four'. If D'Angelo started it the other two might say they were pressured by him and come out publicly against him (like Ilya Sustkever did).
- hackerbob 3y agoI'm starting to wonder if it was a gang of four or if it was a gang of three and they used one of the cofounders (Ilya) to turn on his cofounders to get control of the company.
- jacquesm 3y agoLikely the second or it was a gang of one who used the inexperience of the other board members to get them to act against their own long term interests. That does not absolve them, they are still board members and they should own their decisions.
- gunapologist99 3y agoThat's a big reason why VC's prefer co-founders rather than solo founders.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- frabjoused 3y agoI have trouble finding respect for Adam knowing he permitted Quora to gradually transform from something promising to trashing it’s quality for financial sellout to the point that it can no longer be taken seriously. I don’t understand how someone can let that happen.
- kfarr 3y agoYeah I was thinking last night after hearing his involvement in this, does anyone else realize that Quora is basically unusable now? I mean it started from such a noble cause to answer all of humanity's questions to literally tricking end-users into clicking ads...
- frabjoused 3y agoIt’s not just this, you are given answers to related questions when the answer to your actual question is further down. Possibly to increase stickiness? It doesn’t make sense.
- tayo42 3y agoThis is the most confusing thing any time I've clicked a quora link. I have no idea what I'm looking at. Who designed that? It's crazy how bad it is. They probably got a promo for it lol
- spurgu 3y agoIt used to be good/great in the past but nowadays I avoid Quora like the plague, due to its massively confusing interface.
- AmericanOP 3y agoQuora is the text version of the Chumbox. The chumbox is slang for the part of news site web design you... try to ignore. These sites managed to optimize their design for <10% of users who will click just about anything.
- 3y ago
- letmevoteplease 3y agoAlso interesting that D’Angelo was the one who was negotiating with OpenAI leadership as representative of the board,[1] and the employee protest letter states that the board "informed the leadership team that allowing the company to be destroyed would be consistent with the mission" during these negotiations.[2] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-20/openai-s-murati-aims-to-re-hire-altman-brockman-after-exits https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-20/openai-s-... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/openai-staff-walk-protest-sam-altman/ https://www.wired.com/story/openai-staff-walk-protest-sam-al...
- layer8 3y agoNote that "allowing the company to be destroyed" is outside of the literal quote (which is just "consistent with the mission"), so "destroyed" may be an appraisal by the leadership that the board doesn't share.
- lawxls 3y agoFor those keen on following this situation as it evolves, consider subscribing to keywords 'OpenAI' and 'Sam Altman' via my Telegram HackerNews alerts bot to receive related stories. The bot is completely free and open-source. My aim here isn't financial gain or power, but rather to offer a useful tool for the community (https://github.com/lawxls/HackerNews-Alerts-Bot https://github.com/lawxls/HackerNews-Alerts-Bot).
- AmericanOP 3y agoD'Angelo is mad he weaponized web design against Quora users for years because he would go bankrupt otherwise, and now he is going bankrupt anyway. Adam is at war with god, not OpenAI.
- stcredzero 3y agoAdam is at war with god, not OpenAI. Where does the phrase, "is at war with God," denoting opposition to fundamental laws of reality, come from?
- AmericanOP 3y agoFor me personally, likely Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice. One of those random books you purloin in youth, and a total departure from her standard narrative fiction fare. It's a retelling of the original cosmic myth from the... rebellious perspective.
- godelski 3y agoStab in the dark here, but I would not be surprised if such a phrase is untraceable in origin due to long usage. There are many ancient stories where men battle with gods and they are analogous to fighting nature. Especially considering many gods are considered to be those that control nature and who's moods are characterized by it. We can even find references in the bible but I don't read Hebrew so idk if these are direct translations and not bothering to check changes from versioning. But I suspect that this phrase, in some form or another (battling with god, fighting god, etc), is rather old and not even unique to westerners. So I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase is older than language itself. But I'm not a linguist or historian and this is pure conjecture. Just someone who enjoys language and mythos as hobbies.
- AlanYx 3y agoMy guess would be that it's from Kate Bush's Running Up That Hill (A Deal with God), which leans on the story of Sisyphus. She never actually uses the word "war", but does use various war metaphors ("see how deep the bullet lies", etc.).
- ignoramous 3y agoSome speculate that Helen and Adam were on the verge of being forced out by Sam, the former in the lieu of new investors needing a board seat for their person and the latter due to conflict of interest (via Poe after GPT Store launched on Devday). Once Ilya bought into their concerns, Adam and Helen, without informing any stakeholder (incl Microsoft), moved swiftly and decisively before any director changed their mind (like Ilya eventually did). https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1727026942560330172 https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1727026942560330172 / https://archive.is/l89JO https://archive.is/l89JO
- robg 3y agoThis seems the simplest explanation, and relevant to the post, cause for a lawsuit. Helen could be principled about the mission, but difficult to say Adam was, given what he stood to gain.
- adventured 3y agoIf you're an investor in OpenAI's for-profit unit, the very clear lawsuit target is D'Angelo. His extreme conflict of interest problem is a personal bankruptcy waiting to happen given the value destruction OpenAI has just (probably) suffered. Investors should be promptly slapping a multi billion dollar lawsuit down on the table: resign or else. Then stop messing around and fully split off the for-profit unit, run by Altman. They're in perpetual conflict. The non-profit can use its ownership stake (liquidate it gradually) for funding for a very long time and can still pursue its mission of safe AGI. It should provide tens of billions of dollars in funding for the non-profit. The for-profit can then be unleashed to fully pursue commercialization related to GPT without hold-backs. The absurd fantasy of the dual OpenAI missions co-existing in peace needs to die. They can't co-exist peacefully within one body, everything about their requirements to thrive going forward puts them at odds with each other (from speed, to compensation, to funding requirements, to management approach).
- soulofmischief 3y agoNothing is absurd about expecting a company, run by a group of people, to uphold the values and mission its existence was predicated upon, down to the name of the company itself. Especially in such a short time frame.
- gunapologist99 3y agoPerhaps ironic? Your wording sounds exactly like is was written by ChatGPT (especially the last sentence)!
- lawxls 3y ago:)
- gunapologist99 3y agoand a smile face exactly like how chatgpt would do, too! ;)
- silisili 3y agoFirst thing I thought of, but I didn't want to be the first one to throw out accusations. That comment has the same unnatural writing patterns that ChatGPT uses. Something about the style makes me feel uneasy when reading it.
- krapp 3y agoWhat's funny is that, as content written by AI becomes normalized across media, which it inevitably will, people will necessarily imitate the style of AI if they want to appear serious.
- eh_why_not 3y agoGiven that this debacle turned out to be NOT about AI safety (as Emmet Shear confirmed), the whole "slowing down" angle becomes about interests. Who else had the commercial/totally-for-profit interest in slowing OpenAI down, and was in a position to do something about it? It is hard to see what unfolded as anything but active sabotage.